The lawsuit is separate from the recently decided patent infringement battles.

On Friday, Apple expanded a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung, including the Galaxy Note, the Galaxy S III, and the Galaxy note 10.1 tablet to a list of other devices it sought an injunction against on Monday. Apple claims in the lawsuit that 21 of Samsung's devices infringed against Apple's patents and should be banned from sale in the US.

Last week, Apple won an important court victory against Samsung when a jury found that Samsung had caused just over $1 billion in damages to Apple for patent infringement. Samsung will have to pay Apple that fee, and the decision may also inform this second lawsuit, which isn't expected to go to trial until next year.

As Ars wrote earlier this week, Apple originally sought to ban only 8 of Samsung's devices—including the Galaxy S2 Skyrocket and the Droid Charge—many of which were older models that had been made obsolete by newer models already, or weren't even available any longer in the US. But the healthy sales enjoyed by the Galaxy Note and Galaxy S III change the stakes of the coming court battle. If Apple is granted injunctions against these two additional products, Samsung could be forced to lose a great chunk of its US sales.

Apple's slow ass cycle of control and refresh is biting them in the ass and competitors are making better products much faster and cheaper then them.

True. And their big "innovation" this last time around was Siri, which is like the lamest thing ever.

Yeah. So lame that Google seem to be adding something similar to Android. Google Now?

The difference between Google Now and Siri is wider than the difference between Android Voice Action released back circa 2009 and Siri. One can easily argue that Siri is just a glorified Android Voice Action, but there's enough difference to not make that comparison, the same goes with Android Voice Action and Siri, despite what the trolling news media want you to think.

Oh aye, no argument here. My point was that Siri may be many things (unfinished, under-utilised etc) but 'lame' isn't one of them.

Two players take twenty comments. Decide who goes first and take alternate comments.

5 points if somebody mentions rounded rectangles.3 points for a factual error.4 points for accusing Apple of having a monopoly.8 points if the comment regards patents not mentioned in the article.1 point for an ad hominem attack.3 points for accusing a court of being corrupt.

Wow, I have been following the case, it was interesting that Samsung had evidence that stated Apple stole the iPhone design from Sony, but couldn't submit it. (I'm guessing that the judge is biased or in bed with Apple corporate).

-Judge was a former Apple attorney-Evidence that could have helped Samsung's case thrown out for no apparent reason-Jury foreman was a disgruntled patent troll "looking to send a message"-Deliberations "just happened" to fall on a friday afternoon when everyone wanted to go home

The whole thing was a sham trial bought and paid for by Apple.

If you can't provide proofs for all of the above, then it's just a wild conspiracy theory, not to mention that you are wrong about the "Evidence that could have helped Samsung's case thrown out for no apparent reason" one.

I'm at constant loss of words about Google's apologists here. They will do absolutely anything to twist and bend a legitimate jurisdiction process. Thank the gods none of the forum lawyers is actually running the case.

I'm at constant loss of words about Google's apologists here. They will do absolutely anything to twist and bend a legitimate jurisdiction process. Thank the gods none of the forum lawyers is actually running the case.

I'd love to step into the next local dimension where Samsung won and hear all the praise for the judge seeing wisdom and the jury doing the right thing.

Like they say, Samsung got the trial they wanted. Just not the result.

I'm at constant loss of words about Google's apologists here. They will do absolutely anything to twist and bend a legitimate jurisdiction process. Thank the gods none of the forum lawyers is actually running the case.

Judge Posner (who may or may not be a member of Ars) did run a case that touched upon software patents. His opinion about IP was further made clear from public statements afterwards. I would approve if more jurists of his caliber are involved in this sort of litigation.

Ah yes, software patents. I see that the chickens are finally coming home to roost. Finally we'll get to see the effect of this gaping, infected, puss-oozing wound called the USPTO that was left untreated for far too long wreak havoc on the very body it is part of. Those over-eager, under-trained paper-stampers are about to hand the keys to smartphone market to Apple and whoever bows to them and kisses their ring (Microsoft). All this under loud cheers of their most vocal suppporters, which are just cheering because their team won, not because they won. Because they didn't. In fact they lose each time Apple removes choice from the market, but they won't care, they'll just keep on cheering even if the last iDevice is just a plastic panel with an Apple logo on top.

Apple will not stop its litigation, it can't keep up with the other players, so it has to introduce artificial obstructions for its competition to be able to keep up with them, it has to patent vague and broad digital processes to be able to undermine the competition and force them in to producing a lesser product, only to beat them over the head with it in their own PR. It has taken the utmost advantage of the legislative misstep of ever allowing software patents, and the complementary willingness of the USPTO to give patent protection to absolutely anything.

A bunch of geeks on a forum will not shed light on the horrible direction in which innovation in the USA is going, but removing a popular product from the marketplace on the grounds of 'it searches on the phone itself and on the internet' and 'it can be unlocked by dragging over the screen' might just be the tipping point. While I think the first trial had merits and Apple got far more than it deserved, Apple deserves to be laughed out of court in this one. If not in its first attempt, then I hope the SCOTUS tells them they've been patenting the obvious.

1) The buying public is mostly unaware of the business details of the companies they buy from. (How many car buyers follow the ongoing lawsuits of the automotive companies?) These comments are a prime example of focused nerd-rage.

2) Nothing yet tangible has come from the big Apple v. Samsung trial. It was quite entertaining for the tech press and followers, but there is still much left before a single dollar changes hands or a product gets removed from market (if it hasn't already through natural means).

3) This lawsuit was filed before the outcome of the previous was knowable. It won't hit the courts until next year (if at all).

4) Litigations between companies can occur in parallel. Life doesn't get suspended because one lawsuit is grabbing all the press.

5) Apple has probably observed (closer than anyone in Internet comment sections) how Samsung operates and it's influence in South Korea. Imagine the negotiations they've experienced with Samsung as a vendor. People are fooling themselves if they don't think Samsung is a formidable adversary.

6) This is speculation on my part: These lawsuits are a lot of saber-rattling by Apple to decisively establish their turf. When you have an opponent on the ropes you don't let up; this is how high-stakes business is done. Many tech fans find this unpalatable, but it's simply the way the world operates.

These lawsuits will define how Apple and Samsung interact with each other in the future. Neither company is going away - they will be simultaneously sparring with each other and forming agreements for a long time. Think of the US and the soviets during the cold war: lots of posturing and bluster, but both knew they had to coexist in some form. Of course the observing public hates all the stomping and rhetoric, but human nature doesn't always follow a nice, comfortable path.

As an Apple user I likewise find all this litigation distasteful. There is much to chide some of Apple's behavior, and the same for Samsung. (And none of the other tech companies are angels either.) But this is how the game is played, and Apple isn't going to roll over and give Samsung free reign to do whatever they feel like just because people in Internet comment threads have delicate constitutions.

------------------

I suspect that Apple is pressing as hard as they can while these issues are still young. No one knows where the world of patents is ultimately headed; if the dream of 'patent reform' is to ever come about then each company wants to bargain from a position of power. But remember that Apple is not the US Patent Office - they don't make the rules, they just follow them like everyone else. And when you're in a game with stakes as high as this, you don't go in half-cocked.

Time will tell whether Apple turns out to be the utter monster that commenters here make them out to be, or they demonstrate to history that they played at 100% when they needed to, and then backed off when a competitor finally cried uncle. And remember: Samsung didn't get to be where they are by playing nice. Don't delude yourself of that.

Guess Apple doesn't want any competition for the iPhone 5. They are worried that people may think the Galaxy S3 will look too much like the iPhone 5 and good lord we can't have that.

While I think Apple has something great from a design standpoint I feel their way of patenting concepts that have already been done then suing the competition out of existence is pretty retarded.

The way Apple has been conducting these suits is exactly why I decided to go with my Galaxy S2 over the iPhone 4s.

And I catch hell from it every day because I work for an Apple Specialist and they feel that I should of got an iPhone because it is a "superior" product over the Galaxy S2. Yet they have zero experience with any smartphone other then the iPhone.

Apple has got to be the least diversified really really rich company ever. 2 products make-up over 60% (closer to 70% iirc) of apple's revenues, which is mind boggling really, so they have every reason to be scared of losing marketshare. It will have a huge impact on the value of the company. RIM anyone? That's another company that had one product. If that's not a textbook example of how fast fortunes can change in this industry, I don't know what is.

Anyway, there is always windows phone. Samsung could begin putting more emphasis on the marketing of their WP8 devices, which would be extremely good for MS. Samsung has built a good brand, regardless of all this patent stuff. People like their devices. I think that if WP8 starts to actually make it into people's hands on galaxy s3 class hardware, they'll be impressed. And the new Ativ (horrible name btw) is basically that. It's an S3 running WP8.

WP has done poorly until now for one main reason. it's not widely available. It doesn't get any exposure through carriers, and the world's biggest smartphone maker doesn't push it at all. I think that that will begin to change.

It'd really help the situation if Android fans and Apple haters didn't come across as complete and utter morons. I mean what's with the insults, bad language and name calling and thats before we got onto the extreme idiotic statements.

Make your point sensibly and it'd get taken better, I think most Apple fans are sick not only Apple suing but also Apple getting sued, it is still a two way street.

Apple will not stop its litigation, it can't keep up with the other players, so it has to introduce artificial obstructions for its competition to be able to keep up with them...

Actually, you have it entirely backwards.

The cellphone industry was the one caught with its pants down and realized *they* couldn't keep up without broad and overt theft. It was a simple matter of:

Apple is going to take away our entire revenue stream if we do not respond quickly enough. And the fastest way for us to respond is to copy.

Their hope was to not lose their revenue stream, to make Apple's clearly industry-chainging design and engineering de facto industry standards so they could use them without impunity, and to work on potential challengers behind the scenes while they caught up.

It is clearly obvious that the phone that everyone says proves that Samsung can innovate around Apple came five years after the iPhone. It took Samsung five years to produce innovation. For the previous four years, they just copied the living hell out of Apple's previous work.

Samsung's (and others) biggest fear is that the Apple vs Samsung verdict of $1B may be repeated. That was the result of just a dozen patents. Apple has or applied for over two hundred for the iPhone between 2003 and 2008. Samsung is now terrified how many of the other patents will also lead them to an infringing verdict.

It is very simple, the other cell phone providers just need to innovate around APple's protected innovations. Apple gets their differentiating advantages and the other cell makers get their own differentiating advantages. That's how business works. [shrug]

Seriously fuck Apple. The S3 is NOTHING like an iPhone. This is just them being an anti-competitive scumbag company.

Apple can suck a fucking cock.

I wasn't sure if I was comfortable posting how I really felt in the comments. But you already did it for me! Thanks!!!

I become less and less likely to *ever* consider Apple with each new headline. 4-5 years ago I was Apple-neutral. Then I started raising an eyebrow when I read stories about their battles against users doing what they wanted with their ipod touch hardware (jailbreaking) and my view of them has been a constant slide since then due to their design decisions, litigation strategy, and general douchebaggery.

You'd think that once you passed the threshold of "I'll never buy their stuff" you couldn't continue to deepen your disdain for the company much further, but I'm here to tell you it's possible.

"While I think the first trial had merits and Apple got far more than it deserved, Apple deserves to be laughed out of court in this one. If not in its first attempt, then I hope the SCOTUS tells them they've been patenting the obvious."

Either you didn't read my whole post, or you constructed a strawman to attack me with.

"While I think the first trial had merits and Apple got far more than it deserved, Apple deserves to be laughed out of court in this one. If not in its first attempt, then I hope the SCOTUS tells them they've been patenting the obvious."

Either you didn't read my whole post, or you constructed a strawman to attack me with.

???

I wasn't attacking you. I simply disagreed with your statement about them not being able to keep up. This isn't a battle to the death. There's no Thunderdome. It's a conversation.

People don't seem to understand that the game is chess not checkers. Apple won the initial case and are now going tighten the thumbscrews on Samsung until they break and pay the licensing fees owed Apple for stealing their ideas. Samsung shamelessly made clones of Apple products then refused outright to make licensing deals. Now the gloves are off and all violations are open to litigation. Samsung could have made a sweet cross-licensing deal with Apple that benefitted both parties but in the end they decided to be bull-headed. Samsung has a lot more to lose than $1.05B. They lost a multi-billion dollar supply account to LG and other competitors and the bleeding will not end there.

For all the "I'm never buying another Apple product again" posts in Ars and tech blog comment sections the Apple Stores sure are full.

Apple will not stop its litigation, it can't keep up with the other players, so it has to introduce artificial obstructions for its competition to be able to keep up with them...

Actually, you have it entirely backwards.

The cellphone industry was the one caught with its pants down and realized *they* couldn't keep up without broad and overt theft. It was a simple matter of:

Apple is going to take away our entire revenue stream if we do not respond quickly enough. And the fastest way for us to respond is to copy.

Their hope was to not lose their revenue stream, to make Apple's clearly industry-chainging design and engineering de facto industry standards so they could use them without impunity, and to work on potential challengers behind the scenes while they caught up.

It is clearly obvious that the phone that everyone says proves that Samsung can innovate around Apple came five years after the iPhone. It took Samsung five years to produce innovation. For the previous four years, they just copied the living hell out of Apple's previous work.

Samsung's (and others) biggest fear is that the Apple vs Samsung verdict of $1B may be repeated. That was the result of just a dozen patents. Apple has or applied for over two hundred for the iPhone between 2003 and 2008. Samsung is now terrified how many of the other patents will also lead them to an infringing verdict.

It is very simple, the other cell phone providers just need to innovate around APple's protected innovations. Apple gets their differentiating advantages and the other cell makers get their own differentiating advantages. That's how business works. [shrug]

Someone's been naughty....sneaking those magic mushrooms again I see....I think it's well past nap time now!

For all the "I'm never buying another Apple product again" posts in Ars and tech blog comment sections the Apple Stores sure are full.

I don't expect Apple to be hurt in any measurable way by my gesture. That's not enough to stop me from making it. Of course others will choose differently than I do, and are welcome to do so. That doesn't detract from my gesture, either.

After all, some folks supported Hitler.... I would hope that last one is obviously a joke to all who read it.

I got my S2 because it wasn't a locked-down toy like the iPhone. I was an avid Mac user for 2 decades. Given Apple's focus and behavior over the past 5 years, I'm switching away and will never go back.

I got my S2 because it wasn't a locked-down toy like the iPhone. I was an avid Mac user for 2 decades. Given Apple's focus and behavior over the past 5 years, I'm switching away and will never go back.

What makes one a toy and not the other, they both do the same things, or was you just being insulting for troll reasons?

I got my S2 because it wasn't a locked-down toy like the iPhone. I was an avid Mac user for 2 decades. Given Apple's focus and behavior over the past 5 years, I'm switching away and will never go back.

What makes one a toy and not the other, they both do the same things, or was you just being insulting for troll reasons?

I think the reasoning is something like: If you can't get a bash shell as root, it's a toy.

I got my S2 because it wasn't a locked-down toy like the iPhone. I was an avid Mac user for 2 decades. Given Apple's focus and behavior over the past 5 years, I'm switching away and will never go back.

What makes one a toy and not the other, they both do the same things, or was you just being insulting for troll reasons?

I think the reasoning is something like: If you can't get a bash shell as root, it's a toy.

Guess Apple doesn't want any competition for the iPhone 5. They are worried that people may think the Galaxy S3 will look too much like the iPhone 5 and good lord we can't have that.

While I think Apple has something great from a design standpoint I feel their way of patenting concepts that have already been done then suing the competition out of existence is pretty retarded.

The way Apple has been conducting these suits is exactly why I decided to go with my Galaxy S2 over the iPhone 4s.

And I catch hell from it every day because I work for an Apple Specialist and they feel that I should of got an iPhone because it is a "superior" product over the Galaxy S2. Yet they have zero experience with any smartphone other then the iPhone.

I simply don't purchase a Samsung smart phone because they decide to abandon their user as soon as the customer leaves the store. Samsung Galaxy S, released in 2010 and Samsung has refused to provide any updates for it (bug fixes or security updates) and refused to provide Android 4.x even though it is capable (yes, it can run it - remove the Touchwiz crap and you'll have plenty of space left on the ROM) where as iPhone 3GS was released in 2009 and still is receiving iOS upgrades and updates to this day. Sorry but for that reason alone I wouldn't purchase a smart phone for Samsung running Android because of their atrocious after sales support - and you think S2 is going to be any different? I'm in New Zealand and Samsung still hasn't provided a upgrade to 4.x - why don't they just 'be a man' and release it directly to the customer like how Apple does for their customers? you think S3 is going to be different? please, if their S2 and S1 is anything to go by, they'll throw you under the bus as quickly as they can with you standing their cheerleading Samsung on like a lamb to the slaughter. So please, tell me again, why should I consider Samsung Android smart phones as a viable alternative to iPhone again?

BarkingGhostAR wrote:

Keep in mind that Apple has to be this way as it cannot compete in the computer world. Without iPxxx they would once again be on the verge of going out of business.

I do find it funny, though, that Apple finds Samsung such a big threat. I wonder how much poo they put in their pants at the horror of the competition from this one company. LOL

Which is a load of crap - if you had half a brain you'd at least acknowledge that the computer sales from Apple are double digit unit growth with margins that many OEM's could only dream of. Would Apple be as valuable as they are now minus the iPhone/iPad/iPod? of course not but they sure as heck wouldn't be on the verge of going out of business as you claim. I really swear people like you must be trolls by virtue of such amazing displays of stupidity and ignorance can't be brushed off as a person being their real self.

Here are Posner's words:"[re a slide-to-unlock patent] Apple’s .. argument is that “a tap is a zero-length swipe.” That’s silly. It’s like saying that a point is a zero-length line."

Hmm. That's an unfortunate comparison since a point actually is a zero-length line.

It isn't.

It certainly is.There is absolutely no difference between a point and the result of limit L->0 applied to a line of length L.

That argument is like taking the colloquial definition of theory and applying it to the theory of evolution.

I wish the anti-Apple posts were more rational, but Apple's litigious positions piss me off too, and I will no longer be recommending their products. (I "sold" someone on an iPad last week, sadly, by presenting as fair a picture as I could of the different tablet options.) My fond memories of old II series and System 6 and 7 era Macs are rapidly tarnished by Apple's continuing asshole behavior. That doesn't mean I see them as the ONLY asshole company, but like in many other things, Apple strives to be the best at it. I do know that my opinions and recommendations will be a drop of pee in the seven seas of Apple Hegemony, and I'm okay with that.

As far as cloning goes, Samsung needs to get to work on the Judge Posner clones, stat.

I have no problem with Apple's lawsuit over the original Galaxy S. It does look A LOT like the original iPhone and Samsung's internal documents are pretty damning. I understand that tech companies (and other industries as well) "borrow" from one another with regularity. However, outright copying shouldn't be tolerated.

That being said, these patent lawsuits for functions like swipe to unlock, pinch to zoom, etc. are just petty, vindictive, and (in my opinion) may ultimate hurt Apple's image.

I think Apple is really painting itself into a corner and putting a lot of pressure on themselves for the much hyped iPhone 5. Of course, it will sell really well. However, if it does not represent a major step forward (and leaked info seems to suggest it doesn't), there could be more backlash. There would be some egg on Apple's face if a significant number of reviewers, tech websites/bloggers, and consumers consider it to still be inferior to the GS3 or HTC One X. There is already some grumbling about the rumored pin connector making old peripherals incompatible. What if people don't like the headphone jack being on the bottom. What if the larger screen falls flat because of an awkward ratio or the fact that is still going to be smaller than its two main competitors. If the next iPhone doesn't top the current phones, Apple will risk looking like a cell phone maker that can no longer compete with their product and has to resort to trying to eliminate the competition (rightly or wrongly).

One thing I've wondered through all this....why hasn't anyone sued Apple over iTunes? If I'm not mistaken, digital distribution of music through a desktop computer based service was around long before iTunes was. I distinctly remember putting music on my original iPod using MusicMatch (until Apple put the kibosh on that).

For full disclosure, I upgraded from an iPhone 4 to a Galaxy S3 a month ago and have been very pleased. The features I like the most have nothing to do with cloning the iPhone (bigger screen, widgets, speedy performance, customizable home/lock screens, thin but sturdy form factor, app locker, notification bar).